As objective as you so may seem to be, you have apparently and objectively forgotten that your assertions and evidences of and for Jesus was a sinner
have discounted 1800+ years of academic and scholarly analysis and commentary? So in truth, who is fooling who here? Are you fooling yourself by
asserting such or are you making those theological scholars and academia look foolish, invalid, and in error?

The problem with this is that most of the academics and scholars were in fact religious in one way or another, so having a bias for religion in the
first place negates any objective analysis.

AkashicWanderer sorry for again saying your religious when your not and also I see your point on Jesus "thy will" phrase but giving your life up and
for want of a better word blaming your predicament on an unknown creator entity seems a bit of a feeble excuse. Other examples of jesus sinning
are:

"And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: And when he had made a scourge of small cords,
he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables; And said unto them
that sold doves, 'Take these things hence; make not my Father's house a house of merchandise.'" (John 2:14-16)

Here we have Jesus committing violence in a sacred place, Is violence a sin?

Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall
not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his
kingdom. (Matthew 16:28)
"Surely, I come quickly." (Revelation 22:20)

Now is lying a sin? The first quote says that there would be people alive that met Jesus when Judgement day happened, do you know any 2000 year olds?
The second quote is another lie based on the first, were still waiting for the return of Jesus
There is also evidence of Jesus condoning the use and abuse of slaves and servants. This from a pious man who loves all gods children eh???
Nice point on subjective reality but my reality is perceived to be physical and in a physical world the sun and gravity and the like exist.

This entire thread is the result of a large Troll...As always Please refrain from feed the trolls. Feeding only make them larger and more annoying!

"And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: And when he had made a scourge of small cords,
he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables; And said unto them
that sold doves, 'Take these things hence; make not my Father's house a house of merchandise.'" (John 2:14-16)

Here we have Jesus committing violence in a sacred place, Is violence a sin?

First we need a mutually agreed definition of sin to be able to discuss whether or not the above would fit such a definition.

Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall
not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his
kingdom. (Matthew 16:28)
"Surely, I come quickly." (Revelation 22:20)

Now is lying a sin? The first quote says that there would be people alive that met Jesus when Judgement day happened, do you know any 2000 year olds?
The second quote is another lie based on the first, were still waiting for the return of Jesus

Just because we do not think there are any 2000 year olds alive, does not make it impossible. It is also possible he was talking about reincarnation,
and how their essence would be inhabiting a physical body when he comes back...

Nice point on subjective reality but my reality is perceived to be physical and in a physical world the sun and gravity and the like exist.

This is exactly my point. The physical world is a subjective one, where everything is based on postulates (assumptions). Tell me, right now, not from
preconceived ideas, how do you know the sun exists right NOW?

Any evidence you will give me will be based on sensory perception. Yet sensory perception is not 100% accurate, and it has been shown it can sense
things that in reality are not there (visions etc...)

First we need a mutually agreed definition of sin to be able to discuss whether or not the above would fit such a definition.

My definition of sin is the old adage "do what you want as long as you dont harm anyone else", anything harmful to others by your own doing is sin.
Things like impure thoughts are NOT sin but violence, lying etc

Just because we do not think there are any 2000 year olds alive, does not make it impossible. It is also possible he was talking about reincarnation,
and how their essence would be inhabiting a physical body when he comes back...

Possible yes, probable NO. Plus the wording negates any reincarnation "there be some standing here" would mean only a few reincarnates. Also
the the 2nd phrase "Surely, I come quickly." (Revelation 22:20) I'd hate to go on a night out with this guy if over 2000 years is quick
You know the "I'll be ready in a minute" 16 years later caper.

We perceive the world through senses and yes our senses can deceive but come on this isn't "The Matrix" You might as well say that we're all dead
and what we perceive as life is a holographic record that our minds see as reality and when we die(holographically) we turn into chicken eggs and we
begin again.
However I know through using hallucinogenic compounds that reality can be very distorted but normality is what the world chooses as real and in that
normal reality the sun exists physically or else we wouldn't be here.

Jesus, however, did not use your definition of sin. He used God's, as defined by God and as known by God, whom Jesus was. God wiped out Sodom for
fully rebelling against Him, and your example of Jesus being violent was tame compared to that. These were people who were acting in direct violation
of what the scriptures said in God's temple!

"I will come quickly"
Let's say you're an eternal being who has been around since forever. Quickly is an extremely subjective term. It is not objective. It is not
saying, "I'll be there in a few minutes," and you show up 16 years later. By saying minutes, you're establishing a scale by which to measure the
time you'll be coming. Saying I'll come quickly is subjective to the speaker, who, in this case, is eternal. What's a few thousand years to someone
who recognizes they're eternal? What's a few tens of thousands of years? Millions of years? They are as a drop of water in the ocean.

Well, he was baptised for the remission of sins in the Jordan (if you believe the gospel accts) by Yohanon bar Zechariah the Galilean. That would
suggest that at least in his mind he had some sins (even the so-called "sins of ignorance", i.e. non-wilful sins) to wash away from say his wilder
younger days when perhaps his infamous bad temper got the better of him...

Not that he did not try to set the best example he could in front of his disciples once his mission got started in earnest (say between AD 30 and AD
36) preparing for the 100th anniversary in AD 36 of the Roman Invasion of Palestine (by the Roman General Pompey, BC 63) , when "the times of the
gentiles will be fulfilled...repent and believe in the good news of the kingdom !"

He certainly made what we would call racist-zionist comments to that poor SyroPhoenician lady who came to him for help about her daughter ("son of
David ! Have mercy on me !" to which our little loveable Rebbe said, "Lady, I was sent ONLY to the LOST SHEEP of the House of Israel...and anyway
since when is it right to take the bread out of the Children's mouths and throw it away on the DOGS (i.e. Gentiles, or "non Jews" as the term was
understood in the Dead Sea Scrolls, BC 150 to AD 68) under the table ?"

All from Matthew chapter 15, if you dare to read it for yourself, even in English, it sounds racist !

Unless you don't think racism is sinful. And I sometimes have trouble judging pre-scientific cultures (like 1st Century Judaea who still believed in
fever daemons that could be excorcised with the right spell, see Mark chapter 1:29 !) with the mores of the 21st century....

Or, as Pres. Clinton once said, "Morals are more a matter of geography..."

which means that what the tribe up the hill may tolerate as totally socially acceptable,[even one of the worst crimes in the bible, e.g. wearing
cotton and linen together in the same garment, or perhaps even cutting your hair in front of your scalp ! ] whereas the tribe down there in the valley
may literally stone you to death for doing any one of these "sinful abominations" in the eyes of their clan god.

I personally like what Shakespeare thought on the subject as expressed by his Hamlet: "There is no thing either good or bad, but thinking makes it
so..."

Now I wonder what R. Yehoshua was thinking as he was being baptised for the remission of his own sins?

Which by the way is being discussed now on another thread (by ye olde Amadeus or as I am now known as : NeoAmadeus)

Originally posted by shihulud
My definition of sin is the old adage "do what you want as long as you dont harm anyone else", anything harmful to others by your own doing is sin.
Things like impure thoughts are NOT sin but violence, lying etc

Well I don't agree with that definition, but since it is your post, I will use it in this thread. If that is your definition, then yes, Jesus sinned
by inhibiting the free will of those who were in the church doing things they shouldn't have.

Possible yes, probable NO.

Since it is possible, then Jesus might have been telling the truth. If you can't show me concrete proof that there is no being that has been in a
living state for 2000 years, then Jesus did not sin.

Plus the wording negates any reincarnation "there be some standing here" would mean only a few reincarnates.

Does not negate reincarnation at all. The philosophical idea of reincarnation holds it possible for one to break out of the cycle of death and
rebirth. It is possible that many who were in his presence when he said those words, would later break out of the cycle, while only a few of the men
standing there, would be around now in essense.

Also the the 2nd phrase "Surely, I come quickly." (Revelation 22:20) I'd hate to go on a night out with this guy if over 2000 years is quick
You know the "I'll be ready in a minute" 16 years later caper.

Obviously with our usually 90 year lifespan, our interpretation of such words that describe a a portion of time, will be different than when used by
beings who have a different perception of time. Just because Jesus interprets such subjective words differently than you, does not mean he lied, or
sinned.

We perceive the world through senses and yes our senses can deceive but come on this isn't "The Matrix" You might as well say that we're all dead
and what we perceive as life is a holographic record that our minds see as reality and when we die(holographically) we turn into chicken eggs and we
begin again.

Yes I could say all that, and it would be just another opinion, no less or more superior than your own. Your comaprison to the Matrix is extremely off
topic, and counters nothing (if anything it adds) to my argument that everything is subjective.

You have openly admitted that our senses can deceive us, so any evidence provided by your senses can therefore not be absolutely trusted, renthering
all evidence of the sun, flawed.

However I know through using hallucinogenic compounds that reality can be very distorted but normality is what the world chooses as real and in that
normal reality the sun exists physically or else we wouldn't be here.

How do you know that we wouldn't be here without the sun? You don't, you have preconceived ideas about it, but not until you are faced with the
situation (the sun not existing), you cannot possibly expect to know the outcome (all life dying). Just because scientists tell you that all life is
dependant on the sun, does not make it an absolute truth.

HA HA HA this could go on for moons, subjective, objective. By that same token Jesus could have been an alien, a chocolate biscuit or empty crisp
packet. The problem with subjectivity is that it needs to be quantified/measured to make sense of it. We do this by calculating probability matrix's
usually in our head (by utilising all available evidence) and assigning a value to it. A lower value means that the scenario is less likely to be.
Concerning your sun statement, yes there is a possiblity that its not there but it has a high probability of being there so therefore we deduce from
the high probability that the sun must be there. We know that from many experiments and other varifiable evidence that the probability is high. I mean
would you be willing to test the hypothesis and be fired into the sun?
Concerning Jesus/God/Religion yes there is a possibility but the probability is not that high, in some cases highly improbable. As we only have the
bible as evidence and there is no other varifiable evidence we can deduce that the probabilty of certain biblical events to be suspect.
So from the evidence given I have deduced that Jesus is likely to have sinned. Oh and BTW that was my sin definition, here is the Brainydictionary
definition

Transgression of the law of God; disobedience of the divine command; any violation of God's will, either in purpose or conduct; moral deficiency in
the character; iniquity; as, sins of omission and sins of commission.

Originally posted by shihulud
HA HA HA this could go on for moons, subjective, objective. By that same token Jesus could have been an alien, a chocolate biscuit or empty crisp
packet. The problem with subjectivity is that it needs to be quantified/measured to make sense of it. We do this by calculating probability matrix's
usually in our head (by utilising all available evidence) and assigning a value to it. A lower value means that the scenario is less likely to
be.

How do you add this value to a subjective object? Through considering other subjective evidence! All you are doing is subjectively
interpreting subjective information. This will only take you farther from objectiveness, because when we start to interpret what is, we can
only delve ourselves into further subjectiveness.

Concerning your sun statement, yes there is a possiblity that its not there but it has a high probability of being there so therefore we deduce from
the high probability that the sun must be there.

Who added this high probability? You did, and therefore it is not objective, but subjective to your interpretation. Just because you think something
has a high probability of happening, does not mean it will happen. You are making guesses, but you cannot know the outcome. You have still not
provided me any proof as to the exitsance of the sun, you have only told me it can be there, not that it is.

We know that from many experiments and other varifiable evidence that the probability is high.

Who is we? These experiments which you talk about were not conducted by yourself, but by other scientists. You do not know what actually was the
outcome of the experiments, you only know what they told you. Are you blindly believing scientific journals that tell you that so and so experiment,
proved that so and so is like this?

I mean would you be willing to test the hypothesis and be fired into the sun?

Why would I do this? It would come up with no objective proof...

Concerning Jesus/God/Religion yes there is a possibility but the probability is not that high, in some cases highly improbable.

Possibility of what?

As we only have the bible as evidence and there is no other varifiable evidence we can deduce that the probabilty of certain biblical events to be
suspect.

This is what I have been saying all along. We can deduce all evidence to be suspect.

So from the evidence given I have deduced that Jesus is likely to have sinned.

You yourself said the evidence is suspect. How can you possibly deduct such a specific situation given the suspect evidence in the bible?

Oh and BTW that was my sin definition, here is the Brainydictionary definition

Transgression of the law of God; disobedience of the divine command; any violation of God's will, either in purpose or conduct; moral deficiency in
the character; iniquity; as, sins of omission and sins of commission.

Really not much difference eh LOL

There is a world of difference, here is your definition:

"do what you want as long as you dont harm anyone else"

What if God wills you to harm someone?

Interpreting it through the dictionary's definition, you would be sinning if you did not do it, but interpreting it through your definition
you would be sinning if you did do it.

Quite a difference....

The dictionary's definition is also flawed. Who are we to know the will of the unknowable?

Personally I dont care whether Jesus sinned or not, even if God/ Jesus etc existed I still wouldn't vote/worship or bow down before them.
From the biblical information Jesus was a sinner( be it subjectively or objectively) in my eyes. We can all sit and say the sun is not real and the
skys a figment of your imagination but if thats what you really believe then I suggest you find professional help.

So what is the purpose of this post? You sure are trying very hard to prove that Jesus sinned, when it doesn't really matter to you. If it didn't
matter to you, than why keep writing in this thread?

The purpose of this post is that from all the available evidence i.e the bible I have deduced that jesus was a sinner. Whether or not I care less is
immaterial, the thing is that I wanted to see why people think Jesus did or did not sin. I am entitled to have an opinion on anything whether or not I
believe/agree with whats said. There might be an answer that could change my mind.

Originally posted by shihulud
The purpose of this post is that from all the available evidence i.e the bible I have deduced that jesus was a sinner. Whether or not I care less is
immaterial, the thing is that I wanted to see why people think Jesus did or did not sin. I am entitled to have an opinion on anything whether or not I
believe/agree with whats said. There might be an answer that could change my mind.

G

[edit on 14-10-2005 by shihulud]

No answer I give you will ever change your mind, not because I don't know to answer you, but because you have already made up your mind about your
beliefs.

I do find it interesting that you think that casting out of the merchant men from the temple was a sin. In three places in the New Testament (Matt
21:13, Mark 11:17, and Luke 19:46), Jesus stated that the temple "was a house of prayer, but you have made it a den of thieves." Jesus was
cleaning out the temple, but you say because he was doing violence, he must be sinning. If your house was being treated as a house to rob people and
you came home and tossed them all out, according to you, you would be sinning. I know that this is a weak arguement, but it holds some truth to it.

No answer I give you will ever change your mind, not because I don't know to answer you, but because you have already made up your mind about your
beliefs.

Yes it is highly unlikely that I would change my mind but hey stranger things have happened.

Jesus stated that the temple "was a house of prayer, but you have made it a den of thieves." Jesus was cleaning out the temple, but you say because
he was doing violence, he must be sinning. If your house was being treated as a house to rob people and you came home and tossed them all out,
according to you, you would be sinning. I know that this is a weak arguement, but it holds some truth to it.

I see your point but for one thing the temple was not Jesus's house and he did not have any jurisdiction on what could take place in the temple i.e
the jews didn't recognize Jesus as having the authority to say what went on.
Secondly Jesus was supposed to have a 'turn the other cheek' type attitude which was not what was displayed. He displays violence towards his fellow
man.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.